Delhi court convicts man for rape of minor daughter after DNA matches with foetus of survivor

A Delhi court has found a man guilty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for raping his minor daughter solely on the basis that his DNA matched that of the foetus carried by the survivor..The guilty verdict passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge Dharmesh Sharma pointed out that it was the DNA analysis that "brings home" the prosecution case against the father. “In view of the aforesaid discussions, the prosecution is able to prove that the victim child 'X' was got impregnated by the accused father, which is brought out by the DNA analysis of remnants of foetus including placental bits and profile of blood sample of the accused,” it held..The verdict also underscored the circumstance surrounding the crime, where the accused was stated to have the access and opportunity to commit the “ghastly and depraved” crime inside the house, for he was the child survivor’s biological father. .A case under Section 5 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act and for the offence of criminal intimidation was registered by the police after the incident came to light in 2017. Subsequently, the medical termination of pregnancy of the child survivor was done on the direction of the Child Welfare Committee. .While the DNA analysis of the foetus turned out to be the deciding factor against the man, the prosecution faced challenges in trial when the mother and child survivor resiled from the stand.The court, however, viewed this as a measure to save him from criminal prosecution and consequent conviction owing to "sheer poor social and economic background” and to “avoid shame and dishonour"..On the point of DNA analysis, the defense counsel argued that a “random match probability test”, which was essential to examine independent DNA samples along with that the of his client and the survivor, was not undertaken.In order to substantiate his stand, the counsel referred to the Criminal Law Journal, 2012, by Dr GV Rao, a DNA analyst and medico-legal consultant. The journal said that for DNA testing, a mere match is not conclusive proof unless the statistics are corroborated.It was, therefore, argued by the counsel that a DNA testing exercise undertaken to match the DNA found at a crime scene with the samples of the accused without any reference to any population database was "unscientific" and "unethical".The court disagreed with the argument and said, “I am afraid the article is altogether on a different aspect where it has been advocated that the DNA samples collected from the scene of crime should be matched with the DNA of the accused along with a few sample from the database of the relevant population.”An expert testified that the article in question simply indicates that for the purpose of DNA analysis, random match probability should be provided. However, it does not say that in the absence of random match probability, the specimen data is not good enough for DNA examination. He also indicated that there was no such facility to keep or store random DNA samples in our country. .The court also ruled out any possibility of tampering or contamination of the DNA samples in the case. More importantly, it was noted that the DNA profile prepared during the analysis showed that all 15 markers of the foetus had matched with that of the accused..As a result, Judge Sharma held, “I fail to see any prejudice or miscarriage of justice in the instant case as there is no reason to suspect false implication at the hands of the prosecution. The accused has miserably failed to discharge the reverse burden of proof…The whole narrative of the case brings out without any blemish that none other than the accused had been sexually assaulting his daughter and it was probable that he had also been threatening the victim with dire consequences in case she revealed such acts of sexual assault.” .The sentencing hearing will take place on October 15..Additional public prosecutor Ashok Kumar argued for the State and advocate Yogesh Kumar represented the accused.